Someone re-keys the same data between two systems every week
It works, until the person doing it is on leave or the volume doubles.
Enterprise engineering
When records are duplicated, delayed or stuck between systems, Kritical builds integrations around clear ownership and recovery, so the business process completes instead of needing a person to reconcile it by hand every week.
On this page
Jump to the part that matches the problem or decision in front of you.
It works, until the person doing it is on leave or the volume doubles.
Records go missing or duplicate, and nobody's traced it to the actual cause.
Every quote so far has treated the other platform as an unpriced afterthought.
Before moving data, we define the source of truth for customers, products, transactions and other entities in scope, and map identifiers, field meanings and update rules between systems. This prevents an integration from becoming an uncontrolled loop of competing changes and gives the business a clear basis for resolving conflicts.
We check the available APIs, authentication, permissions, limits and event options against the actions your process needs. Versions, licences and real data flows are checked early so the design is based on operations the platforms can support.
Check the available APIs and authentication against the actions the process needs.
Confirm permissions and limits before the design depends on them.
Use event options that the connected platforms actually support.
Check versions, licences and real data flows early.
An integration needs more than a successful demonstration. We agree validation, duplicate prevention, retries and handling of records that can't be processed. Where ordering matters, that requirement is explicit. Reconciliation shows whether the target reflects the intended source state and gives an operator a safe way to investigate and resolve exceptions.
Integration work is priced and quoted in writing before delivery, not gated behind an unpriced sales conversation. Acceptance uses representative records and failure cases, with evidence that the agreed business process completes correctly. Handover can include mappings, configuration, deployment instructions, logs and recovery procedures, with named owners for monitoring failures, managing credentials and reviewing API changes.
We confirm the systems, the record types involved and where the current process breaks down.
Send the systems and constraints involved and we quote the work.
Use these guides to see which technologies can help with the job in front of you.
Workload and integration planning, with platform skills and delivery fit confirmed before implementation is agreed.
Storefront structure, maintainable themes and the Business Central processes behind catalogue and order flow.

Website and business-process planning, with Wix delivery suitability established before a project is proposed.
Yes. Kritical has built its own connector, and we scope each deployment as an integration project with agreed record ownership, mappings, environment access and transaction tests.
Yes. An assessment can trace the data flow and failure evidence, then identify whether the issue is configuration, mapping, code or an upstream dependency.
No. Existing connectors or platform automation may be suitable. The choice depends on capability, reliability requirements, operating effort and commercial constraints.
The handover names who reviews API changes and how the integration is retested, so a vendor update is a planned change.
Yes. Where an AI workflow needs to read or write through the same interfaces, it's scoped under the same ownership and reconciliation discipline.
Credentials are handled through the agreed access model for each platform, never embedded in client-side code or shared as a static secret between teams. Rotation and revocation responsibilities are named in the handover.
The design identifies the assumptions behind the current volume, so a genuine step-change in scale is a planned review.
Tell us what you want to achieve, what you have today and when it matters.